chuckakers

Me either... And I have looked. I am eagerly waiting for someone to answer what "teeth" have been put into the GM program. In accordance with the USPA Governance Manual Section 1-6... "2. To protect a member [including group members, emphasis added] who is wrongly accused and to protect the rights of all persons affected, members of the board of directors and USPA staff will refrain from discussing any matter relating to any alleged offense with any person not a party to the action and shall express no opinion nor make any statement concerning anything related to the alleged offense except as provided in Section 1-6. Any breach of confidentiality may be subject to disciplinary action under Section 1-6.4 B.9." Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The USPA constitution contains the following references: The purposes for which USPA is formed are as follows: To encourage unity among all persons interested in skydiving...to promote and encourage the study and knowledge of skydiving among the membership and the public at large....to compile information regarding the science of skydiving and to edit, publish, and disseminate the same... Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

***The group member pledge is a joke and has been since the inception of the GM program - as is the program itself. USPA is supposed to be an organization with the following purpose (from uspa.org): The purpose of USPA is three-fold: to promote safe skydiving through training, licensing, and instructor qualification programs; to ensure skydiving’s rightful place on airports and in the airspace system, and to promote competition and record-setting programs. I don't see a damn thing in there about supporting, regulating, guiding or otherwise getting into the business of DZ's. The GM program should be scrapped where it stands. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Irony score 8? What training does USPA provide the US parachute team? Derek V No irony at all. You can't fix things from the outside, and since that post long ago there has been some teeth put into the program and the pledge. Is it perfect? Nope. Am I taking an active role in improving it. Yep. When did you say you are running for the board? You seem to have a lot of thoughts on how to do things better. Why not become part of the solution you insist upon? As for your question, here's a possible answer. Years ago when the only competitions were style and accuracy, "coaches" were selected to work with our athletes to train them. I can't tell you if funding was ever provided to these coaches, but they were selected by USPA - presumably as part of the charter. The coach slot still exists and is sometimes filled, but is most often used as an assistant team manager slot. For the record, team managers are now selected by USPA and coaches are typically selected by team managers and approved by the committee. BTW, coaches are not paid for their efforts nor do they receive funding. I can't speak to how things were done years ago, but that's how it's done currently. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Bill, I don't know the history so I can't speak to that. Maybe there was a time when USPA (PCA) paid for coaching, jumps, or other things for the team. If any old-schoolers can chime in with FACTS on USPA's financial support of the team way back when, please do so. What I can say for sure is that USPA does NOT provide team funding in any way today. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Then I am surprised I had to quote it to you. ***Note that it says nothing about funding. Notice it says TRAIN? You can try to explain it away, but it says TRAIN in plain English.... See attached. You have a nice day. Lol, Ron you didn't have to quote it to me. As I said, I am familiar with USPA's charter. I'm not explaining anything away because there is nothing to explain away. You are stuck on the word "train" to mean that USPA funds that training. We do not. Not sure how many ways I need to say it - USPA provides NO funding to the US Parachute Team. If you question the accuracy of my statement, feel free to call Executive Director Ed Scott. I'm sure he will be glad to confirm what I am saying. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

USPA provides no funding to US Teams. The teams are funded by investment income from the US Parachute Team Trust Fund, which receives nothing from USPA. Please look at the charter for the PCA, later turned USPA. "To select and train the United States Parachute Team for World Competition" As a director and member of the competition committee, I am quite familiar with our charter. Note that it says nothing about funding. USPA does not provide money for team training or any team necessities. Our teams are funded through sponsorships, fundraisers, the trust fund, and out of pocket dollars. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

USPA provides no funding to US Teams. The teams are funded by investment income from the US Parachute Team Trust Fund, which receives nothing from USPA. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Who? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Actually Westerly was... it is my understanding is that no one legally needs anything from the USPA to be a TI. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Read back a few posts. Westerly was doing just that. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Incorrect. FAR 105.45 states: Sec. 105.45 — Use of tandem parachute systems. (a) No person may conduct a parachute operation using a tandem parachute system, and no pilot in command of an aircraft may allow any person to conduct a parachute operation from that aircraft using a tandem parachute system, unless— (1) One of the parachutists using the tandem parachute system is the parachutist in command, and meets the following requirements: (i) Has a minimum of 3 years of experience in parachuting, and must provide documentation that the parachutist— (ii) Has completed a minimum of 500 freefall parachute jumps using a ram-air parachute, and (iii) Holds a master parachute license issued by an organization recognized by the FAA, and (iv) Has successfully completed a tandem instructor course given by the manufacturer of the tandem parachute system used in the parachute operation or a course acceptable to the Administrator. (v) Has been certified by the appropriate parachute manufacturer or tandem course provider as being properly trained on the use of the specific tandem parachute system to be used... That of course begs the question, what organizations are recognized by the FAA? The answer is found in the FAA Field Inspector Guide 8900, which states: D. United States Parachute Association (USPA). The sport parachute industry is largely self-regulated, with most sport parachute operators belonging to the USPA. 1) The USPA has established a group member program as a way for sport parachute schools, centers, and clubs to provide its affiliates with resources, such as recommended aircraft inspection programs, pilot safety information, and safety procedures. 2) The USPA is the only national skydiving organization currently recognized by the FAA. 3) The USPA “D” license is the only license that meets the master parachute license requirement of § 105.45. 4) Inspectors may verify USPA credentials by emailing [email protected]. So yes, tandem instructors are required to hold a valid and current Master license issued by USPA (which is valid only with active membership) to legally perform tandem skydives in the United States. Pass it on. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

This is dishonest at best. Remove the requirement from the GM pledge and let the chips fall where they may. Derek V I disagree. However, feel free to contact the Chair of the GM Program, Chuck Akers, and ask him to put the following item on the GM Agenda for the next BOD meeting: "Discuss the requirement for USPA Membership at GM DZs and the possibility of removing the requirement". You may go to the meeting next board meeting and state your case, or you may send emails or letters, or you may even possibly skype into the meeting. Contact and meeting info: Chuck Akers Gulf (GU) Regional Director Chair, Group Membership USPA Member # 49855, D-10855 [email protected] 19514 Pitchstone Dr. Tomball, TX 77377 (832) 630-1213 The Winter 2019 USPA Board of Directors Meeting: USPA BOD: February 1-3, 2019 Hyatt Regency Dallas 300 Reunion Blvd E, Dallas, TX 75207 (214) 651-1234 FFI: [email protected] I have given you all the contacts, addresses, dates, the procedure, and have ever written the agenda item for you. Complaining on DZ.com is not going to help you with your goal of removing the requirement of USPA Membership at GM DZs. I have told you exactly how to go about achieving your goal. It is up to you to follow up with it and enlist whatever support you think you have. However, in the unlikely event that you prevail I doubt that there will be any additional DZs that will allow you to jump without USPA Membership, aka liability insurance. Those that complain about having to have USPA membership to jump at a GM DZ are a small minority, but please indulge your passion. Mike Mullins I invite anyone that wishes to discuss the GM program or anything else to call me. My cell phone is with me 24/7/365 unless I am in the air or on the air. I also encourage our members to sit in on the GM committee meetings (and other committees as well). My committee is genuinely interested in hearing what our members have to say, and we take their ideas into consideration. Example - at the 2017 summer board meeting we dramatically lowered the fee for non-group member DZ's to host instructional rating courses. This action came after a non-group member DZO requested we consider the change, pointing out that more DZ's would host them if the fee was not prohibitive. The majority committee vote was in favor of the idea because we felt it was the right thing to do for potential rating holders, and we easily got it passed by the full board - all because a single member wanted us to consider his idea. By the way, the upcoming Dallas board meeting will also be the meeting at which we will hold the annual general membership meeting, followed by a big bash hosted by myself and SW region director Jack Pyland. 100 people attended the meeting and party at the San Antonio meeting and we expect a much larger turnout in Dallas since the meeting is in conjunction with the PIA Symposium and Dallas is more central to a lot of skydivers than San Antonio. Hope to see everyone there! Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I stuffed center cells with a Monarch, Excalibur, and other canopies. Never had a problem and it fixed the slam-bang openings. That said, I would never recommend it to others. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

but could it be that the pilot chute is bad instead of the container? If so, what PC would you recommend? Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I'd like to see evidence of that. My guess is when suspended from the harness connection point during a malfunction, a jumper's head position has little or nothing to do with what happens when the cutaway occurs relative to other factors like spin-induced body attitude, body position at the time of release, etc. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

By default, a properly connected and functioning RSL is relatively easy to dislodge. Correct. And once dislodged, it is no longer a properly functioning RSL. That was my point. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

You shouldent be in freefall with an RSL. On that point, has there ever been a case of a properly connected and functioning RSL failing to open the reserve container after the malfunction separates? I've been looking and so far I cant find one single case. The only thing I can think of is if the mal does not produce enough drag to extract the lanyard and pull the pin (e.g. horseshoe). Well yes there has. VSE Service Bulletin ( http://www.velocityrigs.com/media/manual/airsportsservicebulletin.pdf ) was because the shackle although checked had become dislodged. I believe someone else had posted something a while back similar. Hence the RSL was checked on the ground and during the jump it became disconnected. By default, an RSL that becomes dislodged is not a properly connected and functioning RSL. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Why does the local newspaper continue to give this woman a platform for such things? Maybe Mile Hi should start naming the paper in the next lawsuit. The city has said her claims have no merit. The FAA has said her claims have no merit. The courts have repeatedly said her claims have no merit, to the point where she had to cover the defendants costs. But somehow, the newspaper seems to think her claims have enough merit to earn space. And the is no place for comments.... WTF? And isn't she in violation of the court order with this? Didn't the judge order everyone to play nice from now on? top Newspapers - and all the media for that matter - are in the business of exploiting titillating stories for advertising dollars. Nothing more, nothing less. The editors of this newspaper don't see this as giving an overplayed nutjob exposure beyond her relevance. They see it as a way to keep the story alive in hopes of selling their increasingly irrelevant product. It's important to understand that much of the general public sees the news as news. Many (most?) in the media see the general public as useful idiots who keep their paychecks coming. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

aaaaand.... http://www.timescall.com/columnists/opinion-local/ci_31923012/kimberly-gibbs-take-stand-against-skydiving-bullies Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Exactly. That would be more of a poised exit. You said Mr. 15K jumps didn't explain why. That makes me think he doesn't have a good reason. All the advice I dispense comes with the reasons why it's "good advice". he said because it was faster to get down to the formation. He mentioned that if you do a tail exit there is a higher chance of messing it up and getting flipped around since it's a more difficult exit. He mentioned it's typically faster to exit facing the nose and turn 180 on the hill as it's a more stable exit and you're less likely to get flipped or fly off heading. There's nothing inherently more difficult about a diving exit than a poised exit. What he might have meant is that performing a poised exit may be a faster way to the formation for someone who hasn't mastered the diving exit, but that would be a very short-term strategy - like on a single jump when performance is needed over practice. Every exit should be mastered. Once you have all exit types in your bag, use the one that cuts the most corners to get you where you're going most efficiently. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

+1 Getting some solid instruction in the tunnel can take a lot of frustration out of your training. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

I admit that my suggestion is old school, but I also think that some dismiss it because it isn't the latest greatest (probably the same people that call a Stiletto a "Spinetto", which it not). I wasn't suggesting that anyone step from a Stiletto straight to a Velo, Valkyrie, etc.. That's what I did because there wasn't anything in between back then. What I was advocating was using a Stiletto as the FIRST step in transitioning from squares to HP canopies. My "old school" strategy has always been that changes in canopy performance should be made in the smallest steps possible and the stiletto allows for that. It let's a jumper move from a square to an elliptical with minimal change in recovery arc and other characteristics. Am I way behind in what is considered acceptable progression. Almost certainly, but we've all seen the results of making big leaps in canopy choices. The "small step" strategy may not be cool, but it works. On a side note, I'd like to hear opinions on canopy progression choices. Let's say someone decides they want to be an HP pilot. What would others say would be the best choices to go from a moderately loaded square to a heavily loaded ellitical? As for my kid, who knows. He's a Flight 1 coach, PD Factory Team member, and world-class competitor. My guess is he would have some opinions on the question I posed above. I'll make a point to ask him and post his reply. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The Sabre2 is a very common recommendation for that job. So people are expected to go from a Saber2 to a crossbrace? As I mentioned, Stiletto. First I thought you were trolling but you seem to be serious about your Stiletto swoops... other than extremely low hooks and toggle monkeying combined with an instant recovery, what exactly do you think makes a stiletto a reasonable canopy choice for a pilot trying to get into HP- landings? Your youth is showing. As the first zero-P elliptical introduced in 1992, the Stiletto was the first serious swoop canopy and the canopy of choice for HP flight until the Velo came out in 1998. When the Velo took over that title, the long recovery was considered a liability rather than an asset by most. I have spent the past 25 years flying both Stilettos and Velos (from 1.3:1 to 2.4:1) and each has its advantages, but to say a Stiletto isn't a good swoop canopy is short-sighted and to say it's not a good transition canopy to HP flight is flat wrong. The recovery is not "instant", it is short. There's a big difference. My current Stiletto is a 135 loaded at 1.5:1. We are restricted to 90's in our beer line landing area and I perform a "front riser to front riser 90" starting at 350 feet. That's low compared to a Velo, but it's not low. Also, my home DZ is just above sea level, so my turn is even higher at higher elevations. My 270 turn begins at about 500 feet, also not low and leaves plenty of time to get out if needed. It's simply about what you are used to and what you train for. The reason I say the Stiletto is a good transition canopy is actually because it has a short recovery. It's much easier to bail out of a botched turn precicely because it will flatten out quickly, and that is a huge asset to young HP pilots who make mistakes. It also has elliptical flight characteristics so young pilots can move from square to elliptical without having to make a big leap. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

The Sabre2 is a very common recommendation for that job. So people are expected to go from a Saber2 to a crossbrace? As I mentioned, Stiletto. Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX

Stiletto Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX